Richie Porte - what do we know about him?

[Galic Ho]

What kind of an argument is this, Soler fractured his skull and almost KILLED himself in an accident at the 2011 TDS when he was flying, you really have no shame.

Porte has a big engine, like the others in the "magic 4" at Sky, like the "magic 5" at La Vie Claire in 1986, open a book guys if you weren't following cycling at the time. He seems credible to me.

No shame. You're trolling so pipe down.

Refute the actual skill of all those men. On the road by 2008. Also note Geraint Thomas was on Barloworld that year. Also useless until he joined Sky. Like almost their entire transformed lineup was before Sky came knocking.

Actually second thought, can a mod delete this guys mad brain snap comment? I at no time mocked or said jack squat about the misfortune of Soler Hernandez. To suggest that I did is outrageous. Get over your man crush champ and move on. Sky are doping. Only the blind don't see it.

It was pretty obvious I mentioned the two big names on Barloworld for a reason. They'd actually showed some form by 2008 and 2009. Especially Soler Hernandez who were it not for two major accidents, would have clearly been a climbing force these past few years. Unlike Froome and to a much lesser degree, Porte. Porte and Soler Hernandez are inverses of one another. One was a good climber. Very good actually. The other was a decent chrono specialist.

If people can't handle the fact Froome was on the verge of being fired in 2011 and suddenly had the biggest transformation seen in over a decade, then that is their problem. Not mine. Go cry to Brailsford. He might give you a cookie and a cuddle. Here in the Clinic there is no place for the soft. Only the hard.

 

[webvan]

Oh so you know...tell you what maybe you should write a book, in the meantime you're on my ignore list where ignorant "know it alls" go!

 

[webvan]

I won't dignify this with a comment...

I know. Porte was clearly much, much better than Talansky. Porte's single attack wasn't a sign of tactical acumen but of physical strength, Talansky could barely drop anyone with his attacks, Porte took over 30 seconds in 1.5km. The differences between Talansky and Porte weren't minute, they were big. Especially for a race like Paris-Nice, this was the biggest domination in that race for the last 10 years.

Oh so you know...tell you what maybe you should write a book, in the meantime you're on my ignore list where ignorant "know it alls" go!

 

[iZnoGouD]

you're all retards, richie has always shown big talent and has improved steadly, at sky he improved more but there are so many reasons to explain that, he may have been training harder, focusing more etc etc

this forum is so sad, you see someone performing well, "oh here's another rider to trashtalk"

 

[Galic Ho]

Bit harsh on him. 84th in his first tour, then 36th in the Giro. Given his lack of race experience and terrible bike handling skills that's not too bad. Certainly, they are no worse than say JRod or Ryder's early GT results.

Ryder was a mountain bike World Cup winner. Like Evans. Like Rasmussen. That should say enough about potential.

Rodriguez sure, he did emerge later. But he rode for a very very long time as Valverde's best super domestique. Perhaps you remember the 2008 Vuelta? Remember the Angliru stage? When Froome was absolutely garbage and a complete unknown, Rodriguez was pacing Valverde up the steepest climb in Spain, behind Contador.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afFI4alhJQc

Rodriguez was simply over shadowed by a lot of dopers. Take a look at the early naughties. A who is who of Spanish doping. Heras, Beloki, Jimenez. Sastre himself struggled as a domestique behind Basso for years. The big name emerging was Valverde. Then Contador. Rodriguez was there, he just got dwarfed by some damn good riders. Throw in Samu and Lulu and you can understand why he was a super dom. Pretty sure I left out names as well. Well known ones.

Now contrast Froome with the best British riders on the road in 2008. Who do we have? Wiggins himself was nothing on the road that year. None of the Brits were anything other than groupetto feeders. It's not being mean, it's calling them what they were and it is why people should be concerned with how they ride now. Their performances improved leaps and bounds.

BTW Contador and Valverde were born winners on bikes. Valverde's nickname El Imbatido means 'The Unbeaten' referring to an urban legend of his string of 50 straight wins as a teen. Some people, despite doping, always had it. Others don't and because their physical parameters are so low, when they dope, especially blood doping, they gain lots and lots. Like Froome. Like Armstrong. JV talked about lower crit scores getting more of a kick out of epo and blood bags. Wanna take a bet Froome has a natural crit below 42? I think it might be like LA's, naturally near 39...which is super low BTW. Then again, even LA had form young. Won a World Champ at 23. Same with Porte. Least dodgy looking palmares among the Sky big boys. At least he could time trial well before joining Sky.

 

[Galic Ho]

Remind use what team Porte rode on before Sky? Who was his GC leader. Did he not state in 2010 he was there to learn from the best? And of course his boss was a complete novice in running a pro team. Never raced either. Absolutely clueless at how to get the best out of Porte

Remind us during the Tour how well Rogers goes on that exact same team. I'd wager no better than Porte in 2011. Aka, next to useless as a domestique for Contador. Might be a good road captain, but that is it.

 

[will10]

Exactly what I was saying, who knows?! He could well taken time on Porte with better timed attacks and/or stayed in yellow and the ITT could have been different...at that level the differences are minute so every little thing counts.

Anyway it's simply ridiculous to declare that Sky and Porte are obvious cheaters and that Talansky was robbed based on the last two days of racing at PN.

Yep, normally. 33s in 1.5km isn't exactly minute, though. Neither's 22 seconds in an 11 minute climb in an ITT.

 

[Galic Ho]

I won't dignify this with a comment...

Do remind me where I said anything bad about Soler Hernandez injuries? Ever. Or any other cyclist for that matter.

Also point out where people said Talansky was robbed? On the contrary he was one of several names that have been called out for being dodgy this week. Porte, Talanksy, numerous Sky domestiques, Froome, Santambrogio and the real stinker has clearly been CHRIS HORNER. Yeah, we've all been focusing on Sky only! Wake up...they were mentioned because your kind keep dragging them up again and again and again in the Sky thread. Wanna blame someone, blame the Sky acolytes over there.

 

[maltiv]

you're all retards, richie has always shown big talent and has improved steadly, at sky he improved more but there are so many reasons to explain that, he may have been training harder, focusing more etc etc

this forum is so sad, you see someone performing well, "oh here's another rider to trashtalk"

What? How long is it since you blamed Machado's failures on everyone else being doped?

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Sez who? You? What's your credibility on this?! Why would it be better than what my eyes and brain have been processing since the Vuelta 1978?

Sez me, looks to me your brain forgot some elementals. But I will freshen you up.

Let us take a look at the roster of La Vie Claire and compare it to your heroes.

Bernard Hinault

Who on Sky do you want to compare with him? Wiggins?

Greg LeMond

Who on SKY do you want to compare with him? Froome?

Andy Hampsten

Just fourth on his debut in the Tour, who on team Sky would you say he would be comparable with? One of the Colombians?

Steve Bauer

Just tenth on his debut in the Tour, who shall we compare him too? Ritchie Porte? Rogers?

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Nikki Ruttimann

Debuted at 22 in the Tour, ending up 11th. Subsequently ending 13th, 7th, who shall we compare him too?

And, last but definetily not least:
Jean Francois Bernard

The playboy, enfant terrible. Who is he at Sky?

And, let us not forget the great Paul Kochli. I do rate him somehow higher than Dave Brailsford.

I tend to see a clear pattern, but guess you will dissagree with that too.

The most amazing "feature" of the resident clinic experts (as opposed to people coming here to exchange ideas) is the fact that they're absolutely convinced they're right and everyone who doesn't agree with them is a "fanboy". This is really "not normal"...

No, I am just correcting your total BS statement, comparing SKY with laVie Claire, a team full of talented riders who did not come out of the blue.

An example? Ok, since we're in the Porte topic why rant and rave about Sky and Porte cheating Talansky of a PN victory instead of wondering whether his flamboyant/Bertie style tactics (3 unneeded accelerations and then waiting for others to lead in the last k as opposed to one acceleration by Porte when he was exhausted) were not the reason for his demise? Maybe, maybe not, but it's certainly of more interest than trumpeting around that Sky are cheating with nothing to back it up.

I am not saying Andrew Talansky is the second coming but he did show talent at age 23, who SKY can say the same?

And, you do seem to forget who got Talansky back after his accelerations, it was Porte. Now, do tell me, does that not cost a lot of energy? And yet the Tasmanian devil had energy left to make everyone look like an amateur.

Lets not talk about his ridicoulous TT where he was faster than EPO Zulle.

 

[Spencer the Half Wit]

Ryder was a mountain bike World Cup winner. Like Evans. Like Rasmussen. That should say enough about potential.

Rodriguez sure, he did emerge later. But he rode for a very very long time as Valverde's best super domestique. Perhaps you remember the 2008 Vuelta? Remember the Angliru stage? When Froome was absolutely garbage and a complete unknown, Rodriguez was pacing Valverde up the steepest climb in Spain, behind Contador.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afFI4alhJQc

Rodriguez was simply over shadowed by a lot of dopers. Take a look at the early naughties. A who is who of Spanish doping. Heras, Beloki, Jimenez. Sastre himself struggled as a domestique behind Basso for years. The big name emerging was Valverde. Then Contador. Rodriguez was there, he just got dwarfed by some damn good riders. Throw in Samu and Lulu and you can understand why he was a super dom. Pretty sure I left out names as well. Well known ones.

Now contrast Froome with the best British riders on the road in 2008. Who do we have? Wiggins himself was nothing on the road that year. None of the Brits were anything other than groupetto feeders. It's not being mean, it's calling them what they were and it is why people should be concerned with how they ride now. Their performances improved leaps and bounds.

BTW Contador and Valverde were born winners on bikes. Valverde's nickname El Imbatido means 'The Unbeaten' referring to an urban legend of his string of 50 straight wins as a teen. Some people, despite doping, always had it. Others don't and because their physical parameters are so low, when they dope, especially blood doping, they gain lots and lots. Like Froome. Like Armstrong. JV talked about lower crit scores getting more of a kick out of epo and blood bags. Wanna take a bet Froome has a natural crit below 42? I think it might be like LA's, naturally near 39...which is super low BTW. Then again, even LA had form young. Won a World Champ at 23. Same with Porte. Least dodgy looking palmares among the Sky big boys. At least he could time trial well before joining Sky.

Froome came from Kenya/SA, hardly a hot bed of road cycling. He didn't turn pro until 22, it's not that surprising that he is a late developer.

Believe him or not JV has stated he was interested in signing Froome because of the numbers he could put out before the 11 Vuelta.

Doesn't make him clean though.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Believe him or not JV has stated he was interested in signing Froome because of the numbers he could put out before the 11 Vuelta.

The numbers from some anonymous third party, right?

Like all the riders pre-2012 Giro tested high for Hct/Hgb?

Sure thing.

 

[Spencer the Half Wit]

The numbers from some anonymous third party, right?

Like all the riders pre-2012 Giro tested high for Hct/Hgb?

Sure thing.

Given the tenor of your previous posts with JV I didn't expect you to believe him. Unless there is evidence to the contrary I see no reason to doubt him

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Given the tenor of your previous posts with JV I didn't expect you to believe him. Unless there is evidence to the contrary I see no reason to doubt him

Trust but trust?

Sure thing.

When evidence is so easily come by, I'll stick with trust but verify. So far he's refusing to verify.

 

[hrotha]

Bit harsh on him. 84th in his first tour, then 36th in the Giro. Given his lack of race experience and terrible bike handling skills that's not too bad. Certainly, they are no worse than say JRod or Ryder's early GT results.

Ah, but Purito and Hesjedal started doing GTs when the peloton was as dirty as it's ever been, and their peers had been benefitting from EPO for years (regardless of whether or not they too were on EPO at the time). Froome's GT debut came at a time when, we're led to believe, the peloton had significantly cleaned up, after the Puerto scare and the introduction of the biological passport, which would explain Wiggins and Vande Velde's 4th place at the Tour.

No?

 

[Galic Ho]

Froome came from Kenya/SA, hardly a hot bed of road cycling. He didn't turn pro until 22, it's not that surprising that he is a late developer.

Believe him or not JV has stated he was interested in signing Froome because of the numbers he could put out before the 11 Vuelta.

Doesn't make him clean though.

Which page and which of the two JV threads? I've never heard that before. Ever and I've read every page in the Froome thread and almost all of the pages in the Sky thread minus a few hundred post xmas. Pretty sure that would have come up.

JV mentions Wiggins. Quite a few times. Implied he had next to nothing to do with his training. Also, did you see the progress chart for a riders expected career trajectory that Brailsford showed to a journalist who recreated it? Note where Froome was. At the bottom. Pro conti level at best. Garbage. Kennaugh the Wiggins clone was no better. Porte wasn't at Sky that yea. Note the two big names on the team EBH and Lovqvist. Guess who got the highest GC placing on Sky in 2010? Lovqvist. Guess who joined the team next year and presto chango Sky were a lot better? Geert Leinders. Read up what Rasmussen said about his this week. It is in his thread.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Sez me, looks to me your brain forgot some elementals. But I will freshen you up.

Let us take a look at the roster of La Vie Claire and compare it to your heroes.

Fearless,

I can see where you're coming from here, but there is a flaw in your reasoning.

You are assuming that Hinault and LeMond are more naturally talented than Wiggo and Fenton. (We can accept that the other La Vie Claire riders are superior to their Sky equivalents as their peak performance levels are demonstrably superior.)

You then highlight that Wiggo and Fenton are inferior to Hinault and LeMond and conclude that as they are performing at the same sort of level they must be doping.

But you're initial assumption - ie the natural superiority of Hinault and LeMond - is what you're actually trying to prove.

This was a favourite technique of mine in undergraduate maths exams - assume to be true what the question requires you to prove to be true - and work from there. It was surprisingly successful as a tactic.

 

[Spencer the Half Wit]

Trust but trust?

Sure thing.

When evidence is so easily come by, I'll stick with trust but verify. So far he's refusing to verify.

I can understand him being evasive and less than truthful about his own team, but why would he lie about a rider that's not on his team? Unless he thinks I have to say Sky are clean otherwise it reflects badly on Wiggans 4th place in 09. Dr. Evil levels of conspiracy.

 

[hrotha]

You are assuming that Hinault and LeMond are more naturally talented than Wiggo and Fenton. [...]
You then highlight that Wiggo and Fenton are inferior to Hinault and LeMond and conclude that as they are performing at the same sort of level they must be doping.

But you're initial assumption - ie the natural superiority of Hinault and LeMond - is what you're actually trying to prove.

You must be kidding.

Look at their early results?

 

[Pentacycle]

Which page and which of the two JV threads? I've never heard that before. Ever and I've read every page in the Froome thread and almost all of the pages in the Sky thread minus a few hundred post xmas. Pretty sure that would have come up.

JV mentions it in the thread where sort of talks, and he does mention he was very interested in Froome, partially because of his impressive test results and because he was still a 'rough diamond', and had lots of possible improvement. And he wasn't the only one who was interested.

JV mentions Wiggins. Quite a few times. Implied he had next to nothing to do with his training. Also, did you see the progress chart for a riders expected career trajectory that Brailsford showed to a journalist who recreated it? Note where Froome was. At the bottom. Pro conti level at best. Garbage. Kennaugh the Wiggins clone was no better. Porte wasn't at Sky that yea. Note the two big names on the team EBH and Lovqvist. Guess who got the highest GC placing on Sky in 2010? Lovqvist. Guess who joined the team next year and presto chango Sky were a lot better? Geert Leinders. Read up what Rasmussen said about his this week. It is in his thread.

How many times has Froome been mentioned as garbage, according to his team. 'The Graph', as you could call it, was a (mis)INTERPRETATION of what might have been Brailsford's system of classifying riders, based on 2010 CQ results probably. Froome however was a designated super-domestique for Wiggins for the '11 Vuelta, because they knew what he potentially had in him, but they wanted to be sure the Bilharzia didn't kill all his talent. Geez, how stubborn some people are here is just unbelievable.

Froome isn't the one you should be looking for, Wiggins is your man. Porte, I didn't think he was that impressive, but let's wait what he does against better riders. Leinders? Still very unclear for me what impact he had, since his disappearance didn't hurt anyone but Wiggo for now.

 

[Spencer the Half Wit]

Ah, but Purito and Hesjedal started doing GTs when the peloton was as dirty as it's ever been, and their peers had been benefitting from EPO for years (regardless of whether or not they too were on EPO at the time). Froome's GT debut came at a time when, we're led to believe, the peloton had significantly cleaned up, after the Puerto scare and the introduction of the biological passport, which would explain Wiggins and Vande Velde's 4th place at the Tour.

No?

Possible. 2008 would've been cleaner, but totally clean? As clean as now? I don't know. All I'm saying is that his results, given the other factors I've mentioned, are not that bad prior to his breakthrough in 2011.

 

[hrotha]

Possible. 2008 would've been cleaner, but totally clean? As clean as now? I don't know. All I'm saying is that his results, given the other factors I've mentioned, are not that bad prior to his breakthrough in 2011.

Yeah, you made that claim by comparing them to Purito and Hesjedal's, and I explained why they're not comparable.

 

[Galic Ho]

Fearless,

I can see where you're coming from here, but there is a flaw in your reasoning.

You are assuming that Hinault and LeMond are more naturally talented than Wiggo and Fenton. (We can accept that the other La Vie Claire riders are superior to their Sky equivalents as their peak performance levels are demonstrably superior.)

You then highlight that Wiggo and Fenton are inferior to Hinault and LeMond and conclude that as they are performing at the same sort of level they must be doping.

But you're initial assumption - ie the natural superiority of Hinault and LeMond - is what you're actually trying to prove.

This was a favourite technique of mine in undergraduate maths exams - assume to be true what the question requires you to prove to be true - and work from there. It was surprisingly successful as a tactic.

He doesn't need to prove it. 8 Tours between them. Podium places at 23. In the pre epo era. Beating grown men in their teens. We've already had the Wiggins discussion in the Sky thread months back. Couldn't make top 10 in junior world chronos. Lemond and Hinault by that same age were GT podium place getters. It's already well known they are cycling giants. Their pedigree is not in question. It's not hard to make a case that both are in the top 5 greatest naturally gifted riders in history. That is how good they were.

Wiggins is a good track rider, but it isn't exactly hyper competitive among cycling's Titans is it? Cancellara is the true natural talent in Wiggins generation given their similar specialty. Sure a doper too, but he was at the pointy end when they were teens and neo pro's. As I said, Wiggins was always pack fodder. Good but still filler material even in his specialty. Andy Hampsten is better naturally than any rider Sky have in a GT sense. Plus he also proved it at a young age riding for Lemond in 86. Is he in the same mould as Lemond and Hinault? Of course not.

History speaks for itself. Comparing any Sky rider to Hinault or Lemond is actually insulting. They've got nothing on them. Absolutely nothing.

But to be fair to Porte, out of the big Four last year he is the least suspect.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Look at their early results?

The argument is that Wiggo's early road results are distorted by it still being an era of doping and his focus on the track, with Fenton unassessable due to having come out of Africa with Bilharzia.

I don't necessarily believe this, but early results aren't necessarily conclusive as both LeMond and Hinault came from more traditional backgrounds than our dynamic duo and didn't have to contend with blood doping.

Could Hinault and LeMond's TT performances be compared to Wiggo's in power terms? Hill climbing comparisons are difficult, as if riders can't keep up going uphill, they tend to switch into cruise mode, so their climbing potential is understated. (Mig did an ascent of Alpe D'Huez in the mid 80s in 58 minutes once. Whilst his transformation was suspicious, this performance was not representative of his capabilities at the time, due to the factors explained above.)

Even during his track days, Wiggo produced some competitive long TTs where he wouldn't be in cruise mode, so there might be the possibilty of benchmarking flat out efforts here. Then there would be the subjective element of assessing recovery potential.

All that said, if there were a "2-up" Tour de France between the Sky duo and the La Vie Claire boys, I would be betting heavily on the Badger!